Corre vs.

Tan Corre
Facts:
Plaintiff brought an action before the CFI Manila seeking his legal separation from
Defendant, his wife, and the placing of their minor children under the care and
custody of a reputable womens dormitory or institution as the court may
recommend.
Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the venue is
improperly laid. Sheclaims that since it appears in the complaint that neither the
Plaintiff nor the Defendant is a resident of the City of Manila the court where the
action was filed is not the proper court to take cognizance of the case.
The CFI upheld the contention of Defendant and, accordingly, dismissed the case.
Hence, Plaintiff appealed.The portion of the complaint reads:
1.That Plaintiff is an American citizen, resides in Las Vegas and for the purpose of
filing andmaintaining this suit, temporarily resides in Santa Mesa, Manila;
2.That Defendant is a Filipino, 40 years of age and resident of the province of
Samar, where summonsmay be served
Issue: WON the Plaintiff can file the case in the CFI Manila despite the fact that he
resides in Las Vegas.Otherwise stated, WON Sta Mesa Manila can be considered his
temporary residence for the purposeof determining the proper venue.
Held: No. Section 1, Rule 5, of the Rules of Court provides that Civil actions in Courts
of First Instance maybe commenced and tried where the Defendant or any of the
Defendants resides or may be found, or where the Plaintiff or any of the Plaintiffs
resides, at the election of the Plaintiff. From this rule it may be inferred that
Plaintiff can elect to file the action in the court he may choose if both the Plaintiff
andthe Defendant have their residence in the Philippines. Otherwise, the action can
only be brought inthe place where either one resides.
It the present case, it clearly appears in the complaint that the Plaintiff is a resident
of Las Vegas,Nevada, U. S. A. while the Defendant is a resident of the municipality
of Catbalogan, province of Samar. Such being the case, Plaintiff has no choice other
than to file the action in the court of firstinstance of the latter province. The
allegation that the Plaintiff for the purpose of filing andmaintaining this suit,
temporarily resides in Santa Mesa, Manilacannot serve as basis for thepurpose of
determining the venue for that is not the residence contemplated by the rule. If that
wereallowed, it would create a situation where a person may have his residence in
one province and, tosuit his convenience, or to harass theDefendant, may bring the
action in the court of any other province. That cannot be the intendment of the
rule.Indeed, residence as used in said rule is synonymous with domicile. This is
define as the permanent home, the place to which, whenever absent for business

or pleasure, one intends to return, anddepends on facts and circumstances, in the

sense that they disclose intent

LLADOC v. CIR
Facts: In 1957, the MB Estate Inc. of Bacolod City donated P10,000 in cash to the
parish priest of Victorias, Negros Occidental; the amount spent for the construction
of a new Catholic Church in the locality,m as intended. In1958, MB Estate filed the
donors gift tax return. In 1960, the Commissioner issued an assessment for donees
gift tax against the parish. The priest lodged a protest to the assessment and
requested the withdrawal thereof.
Issue: Whether the Catholic Parish is tax exempt.
Held: The phrase exempt from taxation should not be interpreted to mean
exemption from all kinds of taxes. The exemption is only from the payment of taxes
assessed on such properties as property taxes as contradistinguished from excise
taxes. A donees gift tax is not a property tax but an excise tax imposed on the
transfer of property by way of gift inter vivos. It does not rest upon general
ownership, but an excise upon the use made of the properties, upon the exercise of
the privilege of receiving the properties. The imposition of such excise tax on
property used for religious purpose do not constitute an impairment of the
Constitution.
The tax exemption of the parish, thus, does not extend to excise taxes.